Bombay High Court
Shivabai Ram Mugave vs The State Of Maharashtra on 31 July, 2017
Bench: T.V. Nalawade
CRI.WP/251/2007
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.251 OF 2007
Shivabai W/o Ram Mugave,
Age 30 years, Occu: Household,
R/o Chincholi Kajale, Tq. Ausa,
District. Latur. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Principal Secretary,
Home Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai.
2. The Superintendent of Police,
Latur.
3. The District Magistrate and
Collector, Latur.
4. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
and Inquiry Officer, Nilanga,
District Latur.
5. Deputy Superintendent of Police
Crime Branch, Latur.
6. Vijay S/o Nivrutti Jondhale,
Age 43 years, Occu: Police Sub-
Inspector, Bhada Police Station,
Tq. Ausa, District Latur.
7. Govind S/o Baliram Gurav,
Age 52 years, Occu : A.S.I.
Bhada Police Station, Tq. Ausa,
District Latur.
8. Ashok S/o Tukaram Chougule,
Age 33 years, Occu : Police Constable,
Bhada Police Station, Tq. Ausa,
District Latur.
::: Uploaded on - 31/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2017 00:21:33 :::
CRI.WP/251/2007
2
9. Kisan S/o Gema Chavan,
Age 42 years, Occu : Police Constable,
R/o Bhada Police Station, Tq. Ausa,
District Latur. ... Respondents
...
Advocate Sonia S. Chillarge holding for Mr. S.V.Chillarge, Advocate
for Petitioner
Mr. P.G.Borade, AGP for State/Respondent Nos.1 to 5
Mr. S.G.Magre, Advocate for Respondent Nos.6 to 9
...
CORAM : T.V.NALAWADE AND
SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 21st July, 2017
PRONOUNCED ON : 31st July, 2017
JUDGMENT : (Per Sunil K. Kotwal, J.) :-
1. This Writ Petition is filed by the wife of deceased Ram
Kerappa Mugave, resident of Chincholi Kajale, Taluka Ausa for
compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- from the Respondent No.1, for the
reason of causing custodial death of her husband Ram Kerappa
Mugave (deceased) by Respondent Nos.6 to 9, who were the then
police officers working at Bhada Police Station, Taluka Ausa.
Respondent Nos.2 to 5 are the authorities for inquiring into the
custodial death of husband of the petitioner and who launched
criminal prosecution against Respondent Nos.6 to 9 for the offences
CRI.WP/251/2007
punishable under Sections 306, 218 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code
(hereinafter referred as 'IPC').
2. Contention of the petitioner, in brief is that deceased was
32 years old person and he cohabited with the petitioner, having two
children and old mother. He was the only bread earning member of
the family and his approximate monthly income was Rs.20,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) per month out of agriculture and
dairy business. On 19.12.2005, at about 9.00 a.m. police officers
from Bhada Police Station forcibly took deceased from the village of
petitioner and detained him in custody at Police Station Bhada,
without any reasonable cause. In police lock-up, Respondent Nos.6 to
9 subjected the deceased to third degree treatment and thereby tortured
him. On 20.12.2005, early in the morning in between 3.00 to 4.00
a.m. police personnel from Bhada Police Station came to the residence
of petitioner and took her and her mother-in-law to Bhada Police
Station. Only dead body of deceased Ram Kerappa Mugave was
shown to the petitioner. Contention of the petitioner is that custodial
death of her husband was caused as a result of torture and third degree
treatment given to him by Respondent Nos.6 to 9. She has placed
reliance on Post Mortem Examination Report of the deceased. On
20.12.2005, villagers from Village Chincholi Kajale also submitted
CRI.WP/251/2007
representation to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ausa regarding
illegal arrest of the deceased and regarding the custodial death of
deceased Ram Kerappa Mugave due to the violence and tortious act of
the Respondent Nos.6 to 9. Even magisterial inquiry was held by
Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nilanga. After full fledged inquiry,
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Latur lodged FIR
against the Respondent Nos.6 to 9 for commission of the offences
punishable under Sections 306, 218 read with 34 of IPC and they are
prosecuted before the competent Court. Accordingly, Respondent
No.1 is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner under public law
for custodial death of the husband of the petitioner. Accordingly,
petitioner claimed compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty
Five Lac only) from Respondent No.1.
3. On behalf of Respondent Nos.1 and 2, Mr. S.S.Doke,
API, Bhada Police Station filed reply-affidavit and denied all the
allegations levelled against the police officials. According to
respondents, the husband of petitioner was suspect in Crime No.101
of 2005, registered at Bhada Police Station, under Section 379 of IPC
and as per order of Police Inspector Shri. Jondhale on 19.12.2005, at
about 2.30 p.m., the husband of petitioner was brought to Police
Station Bhada for inquiry by Head Constable Sopan Bhande,
CRI.WP/251/2007
Respondent No.8, Dilip Narwade and Respondent No.7. Mukram
Kadri was the complainant in Crime No.101/2005, who alleged that,
deceased Ram Kerappa Mugave had committed theft of electric motor
of complainant Mukram. It was also informed that for settlement,
amount of Rs.5,000/- was demanded. On that day, at about 7.00 p.m.
there was black out due to load shedding and when the electric supply
was restored at about 7.05 p.m., it was found that husband of the
petitioner had committed suicide in the toilet room of Police Station
by hanging. In fact he was not arrested by police and he was never
subjected to violence by any police officer. Respondents have denied
the monthly income of the deceased and contended that, claim of the
petitioner is illegal. However, respondents have admitted that,
magisterial inquiry regarding custodial death of deceased Ram
Mugave was held and on investigation by S.D.P.O., CID, Crime,
Latur, prosecution was filed against Respondent Nos.6 to 9 vide
Crime No.16 of 2006, under Section 306, 218 read with 34 of IPC.
According to respondents, deceased committed suicide only due to
apprehension of ill-treatment and harassment at the hands of police
personnel.
4. Heard learned Advocate for petitioner and Advocates for
the respondents. Learned Advocate for petitioner has drawn our
CRI.WP/251/2007
attention towards Post Mortem Notes, which shows ligature mark
around the neck abrasion on back left scapular region of the deceased.
However, Medical Officer reserved the final opinion regarding cause
of death. In brief, contention of learned Advocate for petitioner is that
no stolen property was recovered from the possession of deceased
Ram Kerappa Mugave and he was illegally detained by Respondent
Nos.6 to 9 at Police Station Bhada and tortured, which resulted into
his custodial death. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my
attention towards magisterial inquiry report and copy of the charge-
sheet filed against Respondent Nos.6 to 9.
5. On behalf of respondents, learned APP for the State
submitted that at the time of occurrence there was black out due to
load shedding and taking this advantage of that situation the husband
of the petitioner committed suicide by hanging himself with the help
of his own scarf.
6. In the case at hand, in fact detention of the husband of the
petitioner at Police Station since 19.12.2005, till his death is an
admitted fact. Even it is undisputed fact that no stolen articles or any
incriminating article was seized from the possession of deceased Ram.
The respondents have admitted that without making arrest, the
CRI.WP/251/2007
deceased was detained in Police Station. There is no record to show
that the deceased was called to the Police Station and circumstances
show that Respondent Nos.6 to 9 detained the deceased Ram Kerappa
Mugave without following procedure like preparation of arrest
panchnama, and so he was illegally detained by police. This act of
the respondents / police is definitely illegal and violated the personal
liberty of the husband of the petitioner. Injuries found on body of
deceased also indicate violence.
7. In fact, after going through the magisterial inquiry report
conducted by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nilanga it emerges that,
during that inquiry also Respondent Nos.6, 7, 8, P.C. N.G.Chavan and
H.C. S.P.Bhande were held responsible for the custodial death of the
husband of the petitioner.
8. The learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nilanga observed
that proper precautions were not taken by the respondents to avoid
commission of suicide by any person detained at Police Station. He
has also observed that Section 41 of the Criminal Procedure Code was
not complied by the Respondent - Police Officers. Thus, obviously
the detention of husband of the petitioner by Respondent Nos.6 to 9 at
Police Station Bhada was illegal and the custodial death of deceased
CRI.WP/251/2007
Ram Kerappa Mugave resulted only due to high handedness and
dereliction of duty by police. If the police personnel from Police
Station Bhada had taken precautions like removal of ligature article
such as scarf from the possession of deceased before allowing him to
go to the toilet, such mishap could have been avoided. Explanation
given by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 is not acceptable that within 5
minutes of black out deceased committed suicide. Thus, obviously
Respondent / State is responsible to pay compensation to the petitioner
for illegal detention of her husband and for causing his custodial
death.
9. From the Post Mortem notes of the dead body of Ram
Kerappa Mugave it emerges that, at the time of his death he was
around 33 years old young averagely built and nourished person. The
deceased Ram Kerappa Mugave was only bread earning family
member of the family of petitioner, consists of two children, old
mother of the deceased and the petitioner. The deceased was young
agricultural labour, who could have worked for the next 30 years.
Thus, the family of the petitioner sustained heavy financial loss due to
the death of their bread earning family member. In addition to this,
petitioner sustained loss of consortium and her children as well as
mother-in-law sustained the loss of love and affection of their father
CRI.WP/251/2007
and son respectively. No doubt such a loss cannot compensated in
terms of money. However, considering the present sky touching
prices of essential commodities, the total family members in the
family of petitioner and above discussed circumstances of the case, we
hold that award of compensation of at least Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees
Five Lac only) payable to the petitioner is necessary to meet the ends
of justice. Respondent / State is liable to pay this compensation to the
petitioner at the earliest. Liberty will be there to the Respondent No.1
to recover this compensation amount from defaulting police
personnel, found responsible for the custodial death of deceased Ram
Kerappa Mugave. It follows that this petition deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, we proceed to pass following order.
ORDER
(1) Petition is allowed.
(2) Respondent No.1 - State of Maharashtra is directed to
pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lac
only) to the petitioner within period of two months from
the date of passing of this order. In case of default in
payment of compensation amount to the petitioner
within prescribed time limit, the petitioner is entitled to
recover interest @ 9% per annum on the compensation
CRI.WP/251/2007
amount, from the date of default till payment of the
amount.
(3) Respondent No.1 is at liberty to recover the said
compensation amount from defaulting staff members
from the Police Station Bhada, after necessary inquiry.
(4) Rule is made absolute.
(SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J.) (T.V.NALAWADE, J.)
...
vmk
